Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"...

Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:

 > On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote:
 >  > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. But we CAN
 >  > define that UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming.
 >
 > Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk mailing"
 > as spamming.
 >
 > I realize I won't get consensus on that here.

At least, not unless we can agree on what "bulk" means.  By the 
definition proposed so far (sending to > 1 recipient, by a largely 
automated means (not counting the automation necessary to send email at 
all, of course)), this very list is bulk.  So is every other.  So are 
any alerts anybody signs up for.  Where do YOU draw the line?

 > But then again few of you are ISPs expected to just come up with the
 > money for resources for every blitz by every fortune 1,000,000
 > company who decides to unload on their (let's say for argument's
 > sake) legitimate mailing list hourly.

If the ISP didn't put anything in the TOS about using too much bandwidth, 
it's their own damn fault.  You can be sure that something about it WILL 
be in there come contract renewal time, or the ISP will insist that they 
upgrade to a higher account type.

 > Special fares at United Airlines? Delta? Wham! Here comes 10,000 msgs
 > you frequent flyers!
 >
 > Campbell's has a new recipe they want to share? Open wide!
 >
 > NY Times, Wall St Journal, Motley Fool, Salon, etc want to send their
 > daily headlines and advertising payload? K'POW!

These sorts of things almost certainly already have very high bandwidth 
connections.  Sure, not as much as they would if they abused the system 
as you propose, but see above.

Also, unlike the normal hit-and-run spammer, these entities give half a 
damn about not pissing off the recipients, and about their brand 
reputation.  If they get tons of unsubscribes every time their 
emails-per-week exceeds some reasonable amount (as determined by the 
subscribers individually), you can bet they'd back off.

 > This exercise is kinda like watching legislators make law, the OTHER
 > guy's use of tax money is a waste, but MY use of tax money is
 > essential to civilization!

On that we can agree!  Just remember that it works on both sides of the 
table: "don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind the tree!"

 > This is why, without per-message fees, this system is doomed. It's
 > just a matter of time.

This system is indeed absolutely doomed, but I don't agree that fees are 
the only way to fix it.

-- 
David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC
See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg